Remote device control allows for running and monitoring prints from another networks with zero effort, but more importantly local device control can't be monetized. It's just about the money.

▲

ryandrake 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Almost every hardware manufacturer on Earth is convinced that the only way for an application to communicate with a device on my LAN is to round-trip through some centralized (always manufacturer-run) server.

	▲	quietsegfault an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The support cost of users complaining something doesn’t work because they’re on 5g while trying to control something on their WiFi is significant. Why not just make it work?

▲

CamperBob2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Remote device control allows for running and monitoring prints from another networks with zero effort

To reiterate the GP's question: why would I want to do that? In practice whenever I want to monitor anything from anywhere, I just VNC or RDP to my PC.

If it's just about ease-of-use, as the other replies suggest, and not actually gating the functionality of the hardware, I'm having trouble understanding the outrage. It sounds as if they are trying to be the Apple of 3D printing, while also still supporting "sideloading." If the hardware itself isn't locked down, why does anyone care what they do with their cloud service?

OTOH, if the hardware is locked down, then that's what people should be complaining about, not an optional cloud service.